Word Search

Changes in the French Defence Innovation System: New Roles and Capabilities for the Government Agency for Defence

Defence innovation systems are structured around two main groups of players that interact in the development of complex programmes: the state (the client and the government agency) and the systems integrators. Technological and institutional changes
of 37
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  Changes in the French defence innovation system: Newroles and capabilities for the Government Agency forDefence Nathalie Lazaric, Val´erie M´erindol, Sylvie Rochhia To cite this version: Nathalie Lazaric, Val´erie M´erindol, Sylvie Rochhia. Changes in the French defenceinnovation system: New roles and capabilities for the Government Agency for De-fence. Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis (Routledge), 2011, 18 (5), pp.509-530. < 10.1080/13662716.2011.583464 > .  < hal-00599727 > HAL Id: hal-00599727https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00599727 Submitted on 10 Jun 2011 HAL  is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire  HAL , estdestin´ee au d´epˆot et `a la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publi´es ou non,´emanant des ´etablissements d’enseignement et derecherche fran¸cais ou ´etrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou priv´es.  1 Changes in the French defence innovation system:  New roles and capabilities for the Government Agency for Defence LAZARIC Nathalie*, MERINDOL Valérie**, ROCHHIA Sylvie* *University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, GREDEG, Lazaric@gredeg.cnrs.fr *University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, GREDEG, Rochhia@gredeg.cnrs.fr **Paris Dauphine University, IMRI, valerie@merindol.net Abstract : Defence innovation systems are structured around two main groups of players that interact in the development of complex programmes: the state (the client and the government agency) and the systems integrators. Technological and institutional changes since the 1990s have affected the division of labour and knowledge in the industry. In this paper we show the srcins of these changes based on information derived from 45 qualitative interviews conducted between 2000 and 2008, which demonstrate the new capabilities that have been created within the national innovation system (NIS). We explain how the role and the capabilities of the French Government Agency for Defence (Direction Générale de l’Armement - DGA) have developed from « project architect » to « project manager ». These new capabilities create new interactions in the French Defence innovation system and new roles for the DGA. Key words: Technological systems, Capabilities, Knowledge, Government agency, Co-evolution, National Innovation System, Defence, Institutional Change.  2 1. Introduction The defence industries in most countries are led by two main actors, firms as the systems integrators, and the state and the government agency, which play an important role in the coordination of complex products and systems (CoPS). In France, traditionally the French Defence Agency (Direction Générale de l’Armement - DGA) played a fairly critical role in the design of defence programmes. For example, it facilitated the emergence in the 1960s of a high technology industry with the capacity to elaborate and monitor all French military programmes (Serfati, 2001, 2008). In the ten years from 1990 to 2000, some important technological and institutional changes led to profound transformations in the relationship between firms and the DGA. Both technological and institutional factors played central roles in this evolution because the design and production of weapons necessitates the elaboration of rules that facilitate the development of sustainable relations and the transfer of knowledge. Debate on the defence industry frequently has tried to identify the triggers and sources of change. Two sources have been suggested: the national innovation system (NIS) and the sectoral system of innovation (SSI). James (2000: 96) argues that ‘a purely national perspective is no longer appropriate for the study of the UK defence industry. Indeed it probably never has been’, while others (Guillou et al.,  2009) maintain that the NIS still plays a critical role in the defence industry. Beyond the immediate lack of agreement over institutional and technological factors, the debate is rather nuanced and is more consensual. For instance, James (ibid) also acknowledges that it is the co-evolution of national, sectoral and technological systems that has shaped the defence industry, which lies at the intersection  3 among these innovation systems. The contribution of these systems is emphasized by Malerba (2004) who considers that SSI have a knowledge base, technologies, input and (existing or potential) demand. The sectoral systems agents are organizations and individuals. Malerba shows that their interactions are shaped by institutions (rules and regulations) and that these systems are transformed by pressure from a variety of factors. Over time, the existing SSI has undergone transformations through the co-evolution of its various elements. According to Malerba, this implies that a sectoral system is a collective, emergent outcome of the interactions and co-evolution of its various elements. Co-evolution is defined ‘not in a restricted sense that two things are evolving together but in the broader sense that multiple things are jointly evolving’ (Murmann, 2003: 21). Dosi and Nelson (2010) highlight the way that the industry dynamics is driven by the co-evolution of technologies and institutions, and invite us to decipher the connections within innovations systems and the rest of the economy. The interactions between technology and institutions, and their interlocking elements and processes, are a potential source of inertia and transformative pressure. For instance, within the American NIS, transformative pressures led to the emergence of a new SSI around ‘ICT business’ and, since 9/11, to the reinforcement and enlargement of the defence industry through the creation of new government agencies 1  (Hart, 2009). The path dependence and interlocking forces within such systems are not definitely established and policy makers can play an active part in social redistribution, the social welfare system and the potential impact of a process of ‘destructive creation’ (Metcalfe & Ramlogan, 2008). The globalization of production is one such transformative pressure in the defence industry. It generates changes in the division of labour and has huge impacts on the state, which, paradoxically, remains the main actor within this system especially in relation to security (Brooks, 2007). This evolution opens the way to a range of interventions related to  4 education and training systems, labour market institutions, financial systems and science and technology systems, to counterbalance any potential inertia that might impede these changes (Lorenz & Lundvall, 2006). In the defence industry, path dependence is a reality (Serfati, 2000). Recent trends in the NIS have led to new interactions and new connections within and between systems, whose internal and external sources need to be observed and interpreted (Mustar & Larédo 2002; Guillou et al ., 2009). This article is one of what is a very few empirical studies on this area, despite the importance of the defence industry in the French NIS. We show how the co-evolution of technological and institutional elements has led to interactions within the NIS and a repositioning of the DGA through the evolution of its capabilities. The present research is based on a series of 45 qualitative interviews conducted between 2000 and 2008 with a range of organizations, including suppliers to the DGA, firms involved in complex products and systems (CoPS) and research and development (R&D) centres working on defence industry and DGA programmes (see annex 2). Section 2 discusses the technological factors that have contributed to the emergence of a new defence industry architecture. Section 3 focuses on the various sources of institutional changes within the NIS and the DGA, and examines the effects of potential sources of inertia. Section 4 examines the transformations in the DGA’s capabilities; Section 5 concludes by highlighting some of the consequences of the profound changes that have taken place in the DGA, for the French defence industry as a whole.


Jan 10, 2019


Jan 10, 2019
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks